[StealthNeighbor]

I hear you already: Blasphemer !! Blasphemer !! Burn him !! He's a witch !! :twisted:

(OK, maybe the last two comments aren't really expected...I think)

Anyway, I do want to learn from your responses. Here's my question / challenge:

Is there any "ergonomic advantage" to OPERATING an M1A versus an AK-47 ??
(NOT a ballistic one -- I think we all know the answer to that one...not to also mention a better sight radius, barrel length, rear sight adjustments, etc.)

Cartridges aside, doesn't either weapon:

1. have a similar right-hand reciprocating bolt with right-side ejection ?

2. a similar rock-in magazine that's not drop-free ?

3. a similar non-firing hand mag release ?

4. a similar gas piston system that doesn't blow directly into the bolt area ?

5. a self-contained cleaning system in the buttstock ?

6. a somewhat "awkward" mechanical safety ?

The M-16 / AR-15 gets high "ergonomic marks" due to its pistol grip (as does the AK-47); it also sports a (right-hand) trigger-finger mag release, a firing-hand thumb safety and a non-firing-hand bolt release... As pointed out by BTP in his "Boston's Gun Bible," the M-16 / AR-15 is ergonomically more perfect...

So -- ergonomically speaking only and modifications aside -- isn't the M1A about par with the AK-47 for firing, reloading, handling, cleaning, etc. ?? #-o

Please...be gentle with me. (I did vote for Bush, ya know; I really am on your side !!) :wink:

 

[Different]

I'm not an AK guru but I have shot it several times. There's no bolt hold open on an AK type rifle. IMHO, the M14 safety is way easier to operate than the AK type safety. Also, the AK type rifle length of pull is not as comfortable as the M14 type. The M14 sight is also much easier for me than the AK. HTH

Also, install a Smith Enterprise or Rooster33 bolt stop on the M14 to make it work like the AR15 bolt release. Slap that baby and go! :lol:

 

[Elric]

try putting 1 of hawks pistol gripped stocks on a M14 and it will be more ergonamically suited for people.

I am planning on buying 1 for myself for christmas.

 

[Jack Orr]

For me the M14/M1A has a very fast sight picture using standard irons. The AK seems a little blocky feeling to me. I guess if I shot an AK longer than a M14 type rifle, the M14 might seem akward. JMO

 

[larryp]

For me as a lefty I think the M14 safty is the most ambidextrious one I've ever encountered. I also think that the bolt hold open on the M14 is a big advantage on reloads.

 

[fubar]

do all aks have that terrible trigger pull? mine all do. and mine all have trigger slap too.

the M1A is far easier for me a righty to operate as a lefty.

 

[MarchOrDie]

Whats the web site I can check out Hawks stocks?

 

[huntinghawk]

Not all M1As are created the same & it goes for AKs also. The Valmet is a modified AK. The Galil is a modified AK. And the sights are somewhat different on both of those then a standard AK.
The AK being an assault rifle should be compared to other assault rifles like the AR15. The M1A being a main battle rifle should be compared to other MBRs like the FN/FAL & HK91.

But if you want the power & range of a M1A & the handling of an assault rile like the AK get a M1A with a bush barrel & stock it out as is comfortable(ieistol grip stock).

Back around 1985 I shot an AK in 308 but forget who was making them at the time. Think it was Norinco. It was a nice shooter but spare mage were $60 each & at the time spare 7.62x39 mags were about $3 each.

HH

 

[huntinghawk]

 

[Gun Guru]

The ergonomics on pistol grip weapons is for sticking the weapon above a berm and fire.

 

[StealthNeighbor]

First of all, thanks to everyone for all their input. >

I agree -- the safety mechanism on the M1A is superior to the AK, as are the sights and the fact that it has a bolt hold-open.

I also agree that the intermediate (e.g., assault rifle) 7.62x39 cartridge is inferior to the battle rifle-sized 7.62x51 M1A cartridge...and that there is a vast difference between a battle rifle and an assault rifle (battle carbine).

From my experiences, GG, I've concluded that the pistol grip is more for handling the weapon one-handed (like a tactical reload, opening a door or continuing to fire while dragging a buddy to cover) than any other reason -- and I've never used unaimed fire over a berm / wall... (but I guess you could do that if you really wanted to)

My goal was to see if anyone agreed that there were more ergonomic similarities than not between the weapons; almost all responses were acknowledgements / affirmations about the differences...

Again, my thanks. 8)


PS -- FYI, I've got 3 M1As (all Springfields -- at the moment): one fully-accurized, bedded and lugged full-size, one Bush (that I'm putting into a Sage stock as we speak) and one Scout (that's going into one of Tony's folding/collapsible stocks soon)... so I am a believer !! [-o< (but I do have 2 AKs, also) :roll:

 

[Top Cat]

If you want to do a lot of full auto firing from the hip, you are going to need that pistol grip, but I personally prefer the ergonomics of the rifle stock for rifle use.

I think the ar pistol grip was necessitated more by the box receiver design for manufacturing purposes... and the ergonomic arguments came later.

For full auto fire the more vertical pistol grip is better for holding onto a weapon that is jumping around a lot. For that and a few other reasons, the AK is a far better squad auto rifle than the m-14, (or the M-16, or the FAL, or the AUG for that matter)...but for controlled aimed, accurate fire at rifle distances, I prefer the rifle stock.

On the other hand, I DO like the pistol grip on my pistol, so go figure...

TC